CoverageApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2025-67641
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedJenkins Coverage Plugin 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123b_ and earlier does not validate the configured coverage results ID when creating coverage results, only when submitting the job configuration through the UI, allowing attackers with Item/Configure permission to use a `javascript:` scheme URL as identifier by configuring the job through the REST API, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceJenkins Coverage Plugin versions 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123b_ and earlier lack server-side validation of coverage results IDs when jobs are configured via the REST API. The plugin only validates these IDs when jobs are configured through the UI, allowing authenticated attackers with Item/Configure permission to inject javascript: scheme URLs as identifiers, which are stored and executed as stored XSS when other users view the coverage results.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
CoverageApplication
<= 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123bCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Jenkins Coverage Plugin versionNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and search for 'Coverage', or use the Jenkins CLI: java -jar jenkins-cli.jar list-plugins | findstr Coverage. The version will be displayed next to the plugin name.Affected if The installed version is 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123b or earlier (any version <= 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123b)
-
Identify jobs with Coverage Plugin results configuredSearch job configurations for the 'coverage' recorder. In the Jenkins home directory, inspect config.xml files for jobs that contain the string 'coverage' under the publishers section. Alternatively, use the REST API: GET /api/json?tree=jobs[name,url] and inspect each job's configuration for coverage publishers.Affected if Any job is configured with Coverage Plugin publishers, regardless of configuration method
-
Examine coverage results IDs for suspicious valuesFor each job with coverage configured, inspect the job's configuration.xml file. Look for the <id> or <identifier> element within the coverage publisher section. Check if the value contains 'javascript:', 'data:', or other URL schemes that could be exploited for XSS.Affected if Any coverage results ID contains a javascript: URL scheme or other potentially malicious URL scheme
-
Review job configurations created via REST APIIdentify jobs that may have been configured via REST API by checking the modification history or by reviewing any automated configuration scripts. Inspect the coverage publisher section of these job configs for IDs that may not have been validated through the UI.Affected if Jobs with coverage configurations were created or modified using the REST API rather than the UI, and contain arbitrary ID values
You are affected if the Jenkins Coverage Plugin is installed at version 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123b or earlier AND any job has coverage results configured with a javascript: scheme URL as the identifier.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Jenkins Coverage Plugin to a version later than 2.3054.ve1ff7b_a_a_123b_ that implements server-side validation of coverage results IDs for both UI and REST API configuration paths.
Fix this in Coverage
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-67641 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-67641 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data